Easier just to get narried.

I agree with you annep. I think this couple should have thought about the implications long before. Presumably he had children by wife #1 who would inherit etc.
He should at least have made provision for these younger children
One of my DS has decided not to wed but it is quite complicated making sure about next of kin, legal rights, inheritance etc.
Until marriage is abolished, it's the best we have for protecting the children.

I think this was about financial support for the children of the deceased man.

People are perhaps scared of marriage if they have divorced parents. When I married many years ago, no-body I knew of my age had divorced parents and people just assumed marriage was the way to go.

I am not necessarily saying this was right but it was how life operated in those days.

Things change. I admit that, if I met someone and wanted the situation to be permanent, I'd like to get married but I accept that not everyone feels like that and it is up to them. Perhaps I am old-fashioned or too conventional.

I don't object at all to people living together but I do think they need to sort out financial matters etc.

Good point Kittylester

Iam The legal situations in those relationships when a couple make what is a life long commitment to each other needs to be secured by changes in the law, that ensure so called 'common law wives' have the protection given in law to married women.

I suppose the problem is defining what is a common-law wife.
Someone who has lived with a partner for 3 years? 3 months? 3 days?
Continuously, or does it count if they live separately for 9 months of the year because of work commitments, or maintain separate dwellings?
What record of commitment would be needed? There's that hackneyed saying 'a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on'.
Unless some legal document is signed, the definition has to be applied retrospectively.

I can understand some people's objections to marriage but these could be overcome. as GrandmaMoira says, if heterosexual couples had the same rights as gay couples.

iam64 because it doesnt always last a lifetime.
Regarding last two points I have thought for a while that everyone should be able to have a civil partnership.

I agree with your last point GrandmaMoira.

Also, the government wants it both ways. DH has two children by her exhusband and isn't entitled to claim tax credits despite having been eligible before she moved in with her new partner. Should he die, she would be in the same position as the woman who won the case. I suppose the upside is that she would then be entitled to tax credits again.

I think it is important to marry if you have children or buy a house together as it gives everyone legal protection in case of divorce or death. There's no need for a big wedding or any religious involvement. I really do not understand why people are against it.
I think heterosexual couples should be allowed to have a civil partnership, like gay couples, who now have the choice of both. Many anti marriage people would be willing to be civil partners.

That’s the point I was making. Why should women have to marry if they’re making a life long commitment?

Its also protecion in some cases when couples divorce.

You can actually go into the office at the registry and just sign the papers. no one is given to anyone or promising to obey etc. Makes it easier for everyone to know who is entitled to what. Its only a piece of paper but it makes things simpler.

He promised his first wife he would not remarry
Why be allowed to bend the rules, if you want to take care of your family then you must follow procedure.

Why should people be forced to marry in order to legalise what is a life long commitment to each other. In the case referred to by the OP, I read the couple didn't marry because he'd made a promise to his first wife, when she was dying, that he'd never re-marry. He and his 2nd life partner, the woman who took this case to the Courts, were together for 25 years before he died, they had 4 children together.

The law needs to change to catch up with the 21st century. Many couples prefer not to marry for various reasons, one of which may be they don't like the traditional view of a woman being given by one man, her father, to another, her husband. The legal situations in those relationships when a couple make what is a life long commitment to each other needs to be secured by changes in the law, that ensure so called 'common law wives' have the protection given in law to married women.

Marriage is a legally binding agreement, so there are rules about the upkeep of children, the distribution of property, the distribution of property and wealth in a will, the responsibility for children – basically all sorts of stuff that you have no control over if you are not a married partner.

Yes its about Widowed Parents Allowance. I just think generally it would be easier to marry.. I know someone who had a lot of hassle claiming her partners pension rights for herself. I just think it would make life easier if people got married. I wonder why some people are so against it.

It is about the children getting access to financial support.

I thought that too, but there are people, who for various reasons don't want to marry.l
If it is the case I'm thinking of ( link doesn't work), , it's about financial support for the children in the relationship, not the widow

I'm not sure the link worked. Its about an unmarried mother who has just been awarded widows pension rights.

married!